The corrosive idea that only corruption and perfidy could account for differences of opinion on the power dynamics of international order and America’s role therein is about what you’d expect from the hug it out candidate.
Replying to @marwilliamson
So great the ubiquitous power of the military-industrial-complex that in a presidential campaign w/ 20 candidates only 2 even dare mention it (both women).So entrenched the perception that brute force is our only problem-solving option that to question it is made to look “weird.”
1
5
That’s actually not what I think it all. But corruption and perfidy do exist, and to argue that they’re not muddying the waters is strange. Are you suggesting the international world order is doing fine the way it is?
2
1
5
I’m suggesting power hates a vacuum and that our retreat from the “brute force” that underwrites our other “options” would be quickly filled (and used) by other (and less liberal) actors.
1
3
Replying to @JGreenbergSez
I’m not a pacifist. Not suggesting US doesn’t have to have strong military presence in the world. But that’s different than basing national security agenda more on profits for defense contractors than on genuine peace building. We must wage peace as well as be prepared for war.

Jul 9, 2019 · 1:50 PM UTC

2
3
1
10
Replying to @marwilliamson
And which of your primary opponents do that - base a “national security agenda more on profits for defense contractors than on genuine peace building”? Because that accusation goes directly to my original tweet. Which you said didn’t reflect your position.
1
1
I didn’t say anything at all about my opponents, tho I said that only one other specifically mentions US military policy as an issue we should be discussing. And that that shouldn’t get one labeled something like the “hug it out” candidate. That such diminishment is undeserved.
1
1
3